Air India Runway Excursion
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 38
Posts: 133
Before being misunderstood, misquoted, called an idiot etc... Calculated, briefed and carried out within limits there should be (Is?) no issue with a tailwind landing. Fact... Moving on...
... there appears to be a relatively high percentage of over runs during this period of massively reduced traffic in the global skies. I am currently camping out waiting for the aircraft to arrive at Curitiba in the South south of Brazil, the terminal is tucked up at the beginning of runway 33. the tendency here during this period of fewer movements is to take off on 33 and land on 15 to reduce taxiing times. Does anybody else play the following thought game: that we are spending more time these days performing tailwind landing (takeoffs too) to save on taxi time as it is much more likely for reciprocal operations to be granted and as such, there is still the same percentage of pilots willing to push the limits which is contributing to this?
or am I overthonking this and talking utter muffjank?
... there appears to be a relatively high percentage of over runs during this period of massively reduced traffic in the global skies. I am currently camping out waiting for the aircraft to arrive at Curitiba in the South south of Brazil, the terminal is tucked up at the beginning of runway 33. the tendency here during this period of fewer movements is to take off on 33 and land on 15 to reduce taxiing times. Does anybody else play the following thought game: that we are spending more time these days performing tailwind landing (takeoffs too) to save on taxi time as it is much more likely for reciprocal operations to be granted and as such, there is still the same percentage of pilots willing to push the limits which is contributing to this?
or am I overthonking this and talking utter muffjank?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 879
overthonking or utter muffjank
In case I am mistaken, the issue with tailwind landings involves flare judgement at higher ground speeds. The aircraft feels the same - same airspeed, but visual feed back differs due to the 'unusual' ground and vertical speeds, thus can be misjudged, such that the variability in flare time and distance are much larger (certification speed allowance is 150% wind speed), i.e. the aircraft is more likely to float - a long landing.
Many pilots will have operated in moderate tailwinds, the industry seems to depend on the capability re changing runways or not. However, with increasing tailwinds, beyond normal ATC changeover limits, pilots lack experience and practice.
The risks in tailwinds above 10 kts increase rapidly.
Many years ago the recommended maximum was 10 kts (ICAO), this has been systematically allowed to drift to up to 15 kts. e.g. aircraft had 10 kt tail limit, customer request for 15 kts (night noise abatement) was reluctantly agreed providing that the AFM specifically limited to that operator and airport, and with additional training; 10 yrs later the AFM clearance for 15 kts was standard without limits or warnings - we forget, then fail to relearn hard lessons from accidents.
Risk during landing has increased - drift into failure - for convenience, noise, weather (particularly if wet or gusting wind), without due regard to mitigations - runway grooving, overrun area, runway condition reporting, accuracy / interpretation of landing data.
Neither 'overthonking or utter muffjank'; the reality of operations, which continually surprise us.
"What we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
Many pilots will have operated in moderate tailwinds, the industry seems to depend on the capability re changing runways or not. However, with increasing tailwinds, beyond normal ATC changeover limits, pilots lack experience and practice.
The risks in tailwinds above 10 kts increase rapidly.
Many years ago the recommended maximum was 10 kts (ICAO), this has been systematically allowed to drift to up to 15 kts. e.g. aircraft had 10 kt tail limit, customer request for 15 kts (night noise abatement) was reluctantly agreed providing that the AFM specifically limited to that operator and airport, and with additional training; 10 yrs later the AFM clearance for 15 kts was standard without limits or warnings - we forget, then fail to relearn hard lessons from accidents.
Risk during landing has increased - drift into failure - for convenience, noise, weather (particularly if wet or gusting wind), without due regard to mitigations - runway grooving, overrun area, runway condition reporting, accuracy / interpretation of landing data.
Neither 'overthonking or utter muffjank'; the reality of operations, which continually surprise us.
"What we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
